Rule 68B limitation excludes recovery challenges that delay sale, and writ relief is denied for void post-attachment transfers.

Proceedings that substantively challenge a Tax Recovery Officer's order under the Second Schedule, including connected suit, appeal, review and writ steps, may be treated as excludable for computing the Rule 68B limitation for sale of attached property, so the fresh attachment was not time-barred. A writ challenge to the fresh attachment and consequential notices was also held unsuitable for Article 226 relief where the petitioner's title arose from post-attachment transfers that were void against the attachment, and where discretionary relief would reward conduct inconsistent with an earlier undertaking to clear arrears. On those grounds, the recovery action was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings initiated by the assessee after rejection of the claim petition and the suit, appeal, review and writ proceedings arising therefrom fall within the expression "appeal" in clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act so as to exclude the relevant period while computing the limitation for sale of the attached property; (ii) whether the writ petition challenging the fresh attachment and consequential notices was maintainable and fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings initiated by the assessee after rejection of the claim petition and the suit, appeal, review and writ proceedings arising therefrom fall within the expression "appeal" in clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act so as to exclude the relevant period while computing the limitation for sale of the attached property.

Analysis: Rule 68B prescribes a time limit of three years from the end of the financial year in which the recovery order becomes conclusive, but sub-rule (2) excludes periods during which levy or sale is stayed, and also the period commencing from the presentation of any appeal against an order of the Tax Recovery Officer under the Second Schedule and ending on its decision. The challenge by the assessee and his father to the rejection of the claim petition proceeded through a civil suit under Rule 11(6), the appeal, review, writ petition, review in writ petition, and writ appeal, all of which were treated as proceedings effectively challenging the Tax Recovery Officer's order under the Second Schedule. The exclusion clause was construed purposively to cover proceedings that prevented final recovery action and to avoid a party benefiting from delays caused by its own challenges.

Conclusion: The period spent in those proceedings was liable to be excluded under Rule 68B(2)(iii), and the fresh attachment was not hit by the limitation in Rule 68B(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the fresh attachment and consequential notices was maintainable and fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The challenge based on Rule 68B was available earlier in the suit and subsequent proceedings, yet was not pursued there. The title asserted by the petitioner flowed from sale deeds executed after attachment and in violation of Rule 16(1), making the documents void against claims enforceable under the attachment. The attachment related back to the demand notices under Rule 51. Writ relief under Article 226 was also inappropriate because the petitioner had earlier obtained relief on the undertaking that he would clear the arrears, later resiled from that stand, and the Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in aid of such conduct.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and did not merit relief under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery proceedings failed on limitation, title and discretionary grounds, and the impugned attachment and notices were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For computing limitation under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, proceedings that substantively challenge the Tax Recovery Officer's order and delay recovery are excludable under clause (iii), and writ relief will not be granted to protect title derived from void post-attachment transfers or to reward conduct inconsistent with earlier undertakings.

---